Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Judicator

About Skulltula

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm absolutely on agreement. I wanted GW to take the time to analyse properly before acting on relics (but at least put a community notice out that they were aware and evaluating). I expected if they'd done so there'd have been a conclusion that Concussion needed to go in order to strengthen objective decks and then likely the relics as well still (glory on upgrades is a problem, it's abusable if not properly restricted and really hard to balance to the level of just about right). That may have been enough to spare any need to prune passive objectives if key decks just threaten to outscore anyway, while finding life rough vs aggro getting in and using knockback etc. Instead GW have made changes and I feel we have to live with them until a suitable window. Flip flopping between changes every couple of weeks is worse and players will not commit to the game. Why commit time learning a deck this week if massive shifts happen and it's bad next week?
  2. 1. Rotate out the mistake cards. Great Concussion I'm primarily looking at you, but there are other offenders...some not least because they're neutral and therefore in just about every deck (point 2 covers this). Some cards are going to continue to act as a restriction on the metagame and design choices so long as they're around, never mind so long as they're near enough ever present. 2. Print the more powerful cards as faction specific. A lot of decks feel very similar because it's painfully obvious the majority of the best cards are neutral. At least if you put your faction cards at a premium you give players clear choice and identity. There's only really Chosen Axes where this was somewhat pushed (Treasure Lust and Earth Shakes are at least reasons to be Dwarf) 3. Try and playtest an environment where different types of decks are equally viable and competitive. It matters far more to balance to see different types of decks doing well than to see multiple versions of a very similar aggro deck just with different skinned models. 4. Fix the wording on your cards. It's an absolute mess and in a TCG I should be able to figure out what happens when cards interact between an initial rulebook and the cards themselves. The amount of errata, FAQ and flip-flopping on some decisions is terrible. Get a framework down, map out how things work, introduce keywords to tidy it up and keep the wording consistent. I don't want slightly different wording on cards to mean they do different things, I want cards to be clearly worded so that they do what a reasonable player would expect from having played a similar card. 5. Fix the Grand Clash structure. It's already ridiculous capping rounds at 4 and only cutting to the top 2. Using glory as a tiebreak really turns this into an absolute crapshoot where you're heavily advantaged by playing against weaker players as well as needing to run hotter than the sun to making it to 8-0 in games and higher glory than the other 8-0s. Use Opponent's Match Win as a tiebreaker (sorry, but the glory mechanic is abusable). Run enough rounds to allow for top 8 cut, double elimination swiss (3 rounds up to 8 players, 4 up to 16, 5 up to 32, 6 to 64). Cut some of the dwell time for it. I spent more time between rounds, on break and eating at my last GC than playing. 6. Improve Grand Clash prize support. Tokens, a playmat and some alt-art promos are nice. They are not £25 entry fee and a day investment including travel of nice. There's something concerning when I'd say only the winner could feel they got something meaningful from their finish (actual trophy is nice) that's a ton of dead EV in the system. Especially when I've seen some GC's start to run on Fridays with finals on Saturday. Expecting players to use annual leave at work, travel and probably find accommodation? Absolutely not for a chance of a cardboard playmat. May well add to this as I go
  3. Some of. I don’t think all need to go. Leaving say bulwark and consecrated at least gives the SCE some form of identity when the game already has a problem with a lot of the factions feeling very samey. You also have to be willing to prune other cards or introduce improvements - right now objective decks are clearly not a good enough choice, so if you remove defensive as well then all you have is aggro. Interactive, yes but they all feel very similar. I feel if you want a board game where you run equivalent but subtly different models into each other then chess still exists. This might be why we just have to wait until the next set. Does anyone genuinely want further upheaval while GW take another stab at getting it right? It’s better optics to just let the season play out and fix things with set 2. Hopefully by printing better faction locked cards, rotating some of their mistakes out, being damn well careful what they make powerful and neutral and triple checking the testing any time they want to put gain glory options into power deck cards.
  4. The movement 3 hurts. Having to carry 2 subpar models hurts. They’ve not placed in any GC this season. As good as Gurzag is, Skritch is kinda just a better 1 model army and Skaven have the results to back it up. As far as the multiple durable fighters goes, Magore is a better option there. There’s not really a niche for Orruks to slide into right now without them just feeling like you’re playing a worse version of another deck.
  5. As above. It doesn’t feel like a good enough fit to make the list of 10 ploys for orruk. Where I’ve found shardgale good is when you have a lot of aggression to stack the damage after, or with Farstriders where you’re looking to get damage on the way in to bring models into kill range and you really value the chip shots. orruks don’t really want to play either of these ways. They can maybe do it, but then you’re just a worse hyper aggro deck than reavers etc. Play orruks to their strength (trading hits) by running great fortitude to get more health - not shardgale to remove it. You’re a better warband for cards like My Turn than Shardgale.
  6. They’re not changing what’s written on the card though. They have the keyword Katophrane relic. They’ve added a rule that says Katophrane relics cost 2 glory to equip. at this point a ban, costing 2 glory, costing 10 glory per etc isn’t far off being functionally the same. The 6 cards are dead competitively
  7. I don’t think they want to go down the route of having cards do something markedly different from the wording on them - and I tend to agree, it’s an awful play experience to have to refer to faqs and erratas heavily in a TCG. I somewhat expect the ‘beta’ changes will stick. It gives the community what they asked for (ban relics: well they’re dead) with the least bloodshed (as a politics graduate I can definitely admire the stance of it not technically being a ban). Plus going to a different solution would be messy. Players want a stable format. hopefully they revisit the mechanics in a future set. That’s the realistic best chance people who wanted to play relics outside of what we did with Kat will get. On everything else, I think this has become a bit of a dead discussion and I’m definitely done talking on it. I’ve largely accepted things will be as they are now and I’m pretty much just doing me in terms of how I feel about that etc.
  8. I don’t know what else either. Community feedback and results was fairly clear a change needed to happen. Beyond that, I don’t think it’s for the playerbase to give solutions, just feedback to contribute to decisions. We don’t have anywhere near the data to make the best decision. I just hope GW know what their plan is. The fact we’re beta trialling isn’t confidence filling though.
  9. So...what is anyone else's thoughts on competitive viability of the relics (the 6 cards themselves) now with the beta changes? I'll nail my flag straight to the mast - I think they're borderline unplayable in a competitive sense. They now represent too much of a downside compared to just running more straightforward equipment and the cost of trying to equip them is prohibitively expensive. Not in terms of just 'defensive Stormcast can't use them' but in terms of any deck using them will win less games in the long run than if they replaced them with awakened weapon, trusted defender and 4 upgrades chosen at random.
  10. Most builds have tended to work around that by including Daemonic and Shadeglass Weapons. Given how much better the top 10 ploy choices are than the top 10 upgrades this feels like the better way to fit in cards for dumb and dumber to get involved.
  11. The reason long board placement exists is because there has to be something other than just meet in the middle and fight. If that's literally the only element of the game, then it's a case of picking the warband with the best model stats and attack cards and trying to just win the brawl. The long board exists to give warbands that aren't immediately favoured in a brawl an advantage sometimes. Or to balance the match for such as Dwarves and Farstriders who have builds that change their plan based on the opponent. It's not about 'giving the chance to engage and play' through changing the rules. That's wanting to have your cake and eat it. There's a clear intention when you look at the card pool and the mechanics that the developers intended you to get round this problem through use of speed. Either by some warbands being more attractive naturally (Skaven, Reavers, Farstriders) or through power cards to improve your lot. Increase your own chance to engage. The onus is on you to build a better mousetrap. The problem I'm seeing for a lot of players is their deck is running trap and twist the knife, every ploy they can squeeze in to get more attacks, double strength upgrades and all the attack based equipment, weapons for their weaker models, oh and some healing and health buffs maybe to be better against the opponent doing the same...you're giving yourself the best advantage in straight up fights, but that comes at a cost when it comes to moving over the board. You might have to make the choice most competitive games with building elements enforce...do I want to be better against A at the cost of being worse against B? Otherwise we'll just build an aggro deck that's the oppressive deck that just beats everything and that's not healthy either. As for the defensive player, there's no difference in one sense between hold objective and turtle in that neither are keen on you coming over and attacking. The difference on objective is it's more likely due to how they get deployed. That was fine when the potential reward (keys, Supremacy) was big enough to balance the risk. In fact I played objective Skaven mainly prior to the latest release. But GW kinda screwed the pooch with Great Concussion and right now it's a better chance of winning to play a turtle deck that has a lower max score but more consistently wins games.
  12. Hearthstone isn't so much the constant upheaval...it's the constant having to live with ****** half the calendar, half where the ****** has been nuked from orbit. Then they break it again and the cycle continues. It's much closer to Yu-Gi-Oh in that respect and that was a game I walked away from as a result. I am interfering with my opponent's game plan. A considerable amount of times, s/he wants to bash me over the head. Preferably with me having walked on up there. Instead I've cunningly walked backwards and it appears he has no kind of cunning plan other than walking after me, through distraction and various loud noises, awaiting a wall to assist him. If only he'd enlisted the help of a can of red bull (it gives you wings) or not skipped those leg days... I mean, it's not like the odd bit of speed and movement couldn't get into my models and interfere with my game plan to keep my armor clean...
  13. You're talking at cross purposes to me, I don't object to a risk vs reward weighting where the riskier actions are rewarded better. I imagine that's why you receive a glory point for killing. But expecting an opponent to just meekly comply with combat? No thanks if you're better prepared for it. The fight can be on my terms. If you like, think of my plucky band of unlikely lads, trying to merely survive the cursed city...seeking and attuning relics of legend to attain godhood. In seriousness though, a majority of the meta plays aggro currently. You are built to find the additional damage, to snowball glory off it and then dominate. All we were doing is exposing the greed of such a plan. You'll have to bake in a bit of movement and/or some passive glory yourself. That seems fair to me - I have to put in +wounds and soultrap etc. and have to pack pushes for hold objective decks. The latter who should outscore and expose my greed in not being prepared to engage over the objectives. The problem is GW printed a really silly card in Great Concussion to go with multiple other hosers. I will happily support some kind of disarming where Great Concussion can FRO and we lose some objectives and have to engage a bit more. That would be a bit more balanced.
  14. Yep, this is actually a positive point. the key thing is they don’t do it too frequently and as an excuse for balance. Hearthstone is particularly tiring for frequent upheavals. My main concern from this whole experience is how the game shapes out. If as some people would seem to prefer the game becomes purely combat then to my mind the TCG element is dead and I’ve lost interest. If we’re reduced to different combat factions, whether to increase dice or damage then that’s solveable in an afternoon with a calculator. The act of having to build a deck capable of competing with someone who may have a different plan is the element that I’m interested in and keeps things fresh a lot longer.
  15. It won’t change the dynamic for a competitive relic deck because competitive relic decks do not exist. It was a package of 7 cards basically that traded the ability to mulligan for silly glory if your game plan worked. Now the cost is a lot higher on it and I don’t think relics themselves are worth the risk any more than Claim the City is for Guard. for the defensive deck you faced...it can still run the same objectives, ploys (maybe swap spoils of battle) and upgrades (6 slots and arguably deathly fortitude loses attractiveness if moving turn 3 can happen) and run the same plan. Unless your margin of loss was less than 16 (assuming they went off) then the bad news is you didn’t lose because they had relics. You lost to being controlled.
  • Create New...